Why you may NOT want to develop for Android...

[John Masterson]

From a New York Times story today...

Google is now making it as easy as possible to develop apps for the Android OS:

"You can build just about any app you can imagine with App Inventor,” says Google in its announcement.

“You do not need to be a developer. App Inventor requires NO programming knowledge. This is because instead of writing code, you visually design the way the app looks and use blocks to specify the app’s behavior.”

Do-it-yourself software? You just drag building blocks around? That would change everything. No wonder this tech-news item made headlines even in general-interest newspapers like this one.

If App Inventor delivers, it would give wings to thousands of people with great ideas but no coding chops. It would be a gateway for entrepreneurs, who could theoretically get rich from a hit app. Above all, it would be a brilliantly shrewd move for Google — a huge competitive advantage over the iPhone, whose apps must be written using a complicated programming language and then individually approved by Apple.

Sure, we've seen this before. And more sophisticated apps will no doubt require some programming.

But this illustrates EXACTLY what has happened to our industry to make it less profitable to be a programmer!

[lorb]

I am not a bleeding edge technology person; I like to wait to see what works and then use that.

It's normal for the market to want to find a way to drive down the price of anything new and popular for the masses to use. 

I'm just amazed with the Smalltalk example that the guy got away with $100/hr for so long, but not really amazed because back then there was more of an overall shortage of programmers as well.  At least I get the "do what you like" part of the argument.

[The Original Henry]

These types of apps have always been horrible failures. I've seen so many of them and even built one of my own waaaaay back in the day. They all failed in a big way.

The perception that coding can be magically reduced to a manufacturing process just won't die for some reason. Even the programmers keep falling for the idea, so it's hard to set up an "us vs. them" argument for it.

The real question about Android to me is if there is really enough complexity in the needs for smart phone use to justify a commitment to it by career programmers. I'm not convinced there is.

[I D Shukhov]

I did a web site for my homeowners association with Google Sites.  I created a decent site in just a few hours.  I would expect the same capability from App Inventor.  I don't think it's going to produce anything commercial grade, though.  Like Google Sites, you'll be able to create a functional, workmanlike product, but not something highly creative.

[lorb]

"They all failed in a big way."

Techno-failure != business failure.  Many will make do rather than hire a programmer.

[Richardk]

Techno-failure != business failure.  Many will make do rather than hire a programmer.

That's the key! Once again, GOOD ENOUGH rules!

For simple forms, pulling data, mash up type apps, this will work OK. Just like companies created everything using Excel, with a few advancing into Access. When it's "not too hard" you can get quite a bit done but at some point you get stuck. We've all seen it.

This kind of thing also happened to graphic artists; First with simple desktop publishing systems (is that term even used anymore?) and now everyone has photoshop and/or illustrator. Some of the stuff is pretty good today but just because you can use the program doesn't mean that you know anything about page layout.

The "hard work" will still be around but as long as tools remain easy to use and "good enough" rules, the "simpler apps" will disappear.

[The Original Henry]

For simple forms, pulling data, mash up type apps, this will work OK

But this is precisely the point. People doing this kind of stuff has a scope limited to the unsophisticated individual. It poses no threat to custom programming as we know it, especially not anything that's sophisticated enough to involve business and/or real money.

It's interesting that my remarks led the discussion into the direction of the unsophisticated user, because that's all I see when I look at smart phones, their apps, and their uses. I just can't see anything more sophisticated than the simple form, pulling data, mash up type apps being used on these devices, therefore I don't see there being a reason for focusing any kind of business or professional effort on that market.

Techno-failure != business failure.  Many will make do rather than hire a programmer.

These people were never viable customers in the first place. The viable customers all have needs that exceed the capabilities of the generic app factories, which is why the app factories have all been failures from both angles. This cycle goes back at least 30 years when "The Last One" was created:

http://www.tebbo.com/presshere/html/wf8104.htm

As development progressed it became clear that here was the potential for an exciting software product which could mark the beginning of a new era in computing: an era in which the user can receive exactly the system he requires and which can change along with his changing needs. No more will he be held to ransom by a data processing industry largely indifferent to the need for systems to be easily changed and intolerant of the slightest deviation by the user from original system specifications.

[The Gorn]

Meme of the day:

The desktop is where artistic masterpieces are created.

Mobile apps are like an Etch-A-Sketch drawing.

[lorb]

My only point is bleeding-edge is just like anything else, only more transitory.  Whoever talks about perl?  But if the business user wants some data extracted or web-page scraped, who is going to get it done faster?  My problem solving ability and getting it coded in perl track each other fairly closely.

I suppose there are a lot of mobile users out there, so you can end this argument now by telling us how rich you've gotten, since money would seem to be the prime differentiator between doing this and something else, unless it's just for fun, which is more a statement than an argument.

This is how I picture many people who have a lot of years experience on their resume that I don't.  "Yes, I know Android is only 2 years old and you want 3 years of experience, but I have been messing around with it since them, and since I also have 10-20 years experience over here doing all this other programming since before COBOL, you must see me as the chosen one to receive this contract."

It would be illuminating, tell me how you do it.  Or maybe it's just "Well, have you found anyone else matching your job description, okay then hire me."  - OR - the resume speaks for itself because it just says programming, programming since forever yada, yada  - OR - you really want to write your own app and sell it. - OR - you are great at job hunting, which I suspect is true.  Which one is it?

[Richardk]

Mobile apps are like an Etch-A-Sketch drawing.

But when everyone has one, you believe that's where the market is.

It's like my first PDA 10 years ago. Really cool device that went nowhere. Today, they're all interconnected, which adds a lot more possibilities and it might make it this time.

[TechTalk]

From a New York Times story today...

You can build just about any app you can imagine with App Inventor,” says Google in its announcement....

Yeah right and pigs can fly. 

This topic caused me to do a quick Google search on "Charles Simonyi" where I found the following old news announcement (see below).  I wonder how much progress his company has made since 2002?  Probably very little.  Note: The name of the company he founded is actually called "Intentional Software Corporation" http://intentsoft.com

Sep. 18, 2002
Charles Simonyi has been an integral part of Microsoft since he joined in the DOS days of 1981. From the start he concentrated on the technical side of things at Microsoft, and helped develop Word, and Excel. But there was an announcement yesterday that he will be leaving Microsoft to start his own company.

Up until 1999 Simonyi was Chief Architect at Microsoft, but he has not worked on any products since then. Instead he was allowed to concentrate on a software engineering research project. The fruits of his labor are part of the reason he is leaving Microsoft to start his own company, International Software Corporation. His new venture aims to make the programming process much easier and more productive by replacing code with tools that rely on charts and images instead.

Microsoft has given its blessing to Simonyi, and he has been allowed to retain IP and patents he developed while working there. In return, Microsoft gets first negotiation rights if International Software Corporation ever goes up for sale.

Read more at The New York Times (free registration required).

[The Gorn]

Charles Simonyi

Hungarian notation.

He dates Martha Stewart, and that's a gooood thing.

I think he went to the ISS once.

That's all I know him for, not startups... That intentsoft sounds like a dilettante's hobby.

[Peter Gibbons]

Regarding the $100/hour Smalltalk contracts:

Four factors:
1. Adopted by companies with deep pockets.
2. Cutting edge OOP tech - most developers didn't get it back then.
3. Very strange syntax - most developers wouldn't bother.
4. The right timing.